If you have decided to join TheRx.com you have to register before you can become a member: Click the red colored register link to proceed. Follow the simple instructions. Registration applications can take from 1 to 24 hours to be completed by our software.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, how can Federer be the best ever as some say
if he's not even the best player of this era? In a non-team sport Nadal
holds a huge 14-7 lead in head to head matches. 7 of these have been
in Grand Slam Finals, of which Nadal has won 5.

Head-to-head tallies

The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:[9]
Nadal serves to Federer during the 2006 Wimbledon final

My opinion is that especially in a non-team sport, to be considered the best ever, you'd have to at least be better than the players you played with in your era in head--to-head matches.
Especially when there are so many storied matches between these two players.

I don't think you can gauge the best ever solely due to head-head records. After all, Andy Murray also has a winning record over Federer. If Nadal stays healthy throughout his career (which is a huge if), he will most likely be remembered as the best player ever, he definitely has the potential.

That said, in this era Federer has accomplished much more than Nadal, and it isn't even close. Yes, Nadal has the a 14-7 record against Federer. Yet, 12 of those matches have been on red clay, and Nadal is the best ever on clay, hands down (only exception MAYBE could be Bjorn Borg). I don't think any big tennis fans can dispute Nadal is 2x as good on clay as Federer is on grass. However, Federer still has accomplished much more. Not only his 16 grand slams, but his record of 23 consecutive semi-finals in slams in my opinion is the most impressive record in any sport in the modern era.

Nadal definitely has potential to be the best ever when it's all said and done, but he still has much more to accomplish in his career.

Definitely the best ever. You don't break the records he did by accident, consistent excellence over an extended period. Rafas been great for a short period and maybe one day he works himself into the conversation but it's still too early and Rafas injury count continues to build. His style is particularly hard on the body and whether he can maintain this form for the long haul remains to be seen. It's like back when Seles was dominating the game on the womans side and she was talked about as possibly the best over cause she was handing Graf losses but it didn't last. Rafa plays a style that drives Fed crazy and it's not a favorable match up for him but you gotta compare overall numbers wins losses titles and not just head to head. Otherwise you could see Rafa having a losing record vs someone like Djokovic (dont know just naming any other player) and then what Djokos the best ever? Also 10-2 on clay courts, you spread those matches over a more neutral ground and not one that favors Rafa and the results would be a little more even.

I don't like to compare players from different eras. Laver was the best of his era, Sampras was the best of his era.

I'd say that Federer was the best of his era, but I hesitate because Nadal has clearly been the better player in head-to-head matches. So, I guess I'd give Federer the title of overall best player
of his era with an asterisk.

Sey Hey Kid, Murray has a better record against Federer, but they haven't played each other more than 5 or 6 times.

and more people have beaten nadal than have beaten fed...fed is no doubt the best tennis player ever and his record against the world proves it...everyone is entitled to their opinion though...no matter how much logic and statistics proves it wrong... nadals body wont hold up long enough for him to accomplish all the things fed has

and more people have beaten nadal than have beaten fed...fed is no doubt the best tennis player ever and his record against the world proves it...everyone is entitled to their opinion though...no matter how much logic and statistics proves it wrong... nadals body wont hold up long enough for him to accomplish all the things fed has

How can you call someone the best ever in a non-team head-to-head sport when he's clearly NOT better than Nadal in head-to-head matches? It's not even close?

The *only* surface that Roger has en edge over Nadal is grass where he holds a 2-1 edge (in head-to-head play).

I think you have to look at the entire body of work. The Cards were the best team in baseball in 2004, but lost 70% of the time they played the Cubs. Means nothing. Nadal has a long way to go to be in the same class with Fed and all of his accomplishments.

I think you have to look at the entire body of work. The Cards were the best team in baseball in 2004, but lost 70% of the time they played the Cubs. Means nothing. Nadal has a long way to go to be in the same class with Fed and all of his accomplishments.

The baseball situation you cite is over one season, this situation is over their whole career. It'll be interesting to see where the totals end up over the next 5+ years.

How can you call someone the best ever in a non-team head-to-head sport when he's clearly NOT better than Nadal in head-to-head matches? It's not even close?

Seems ridiculous to me.

If Nadal and Federer were both 100% healthy and 100% at their best and played 12 matches; 4 on Hard court, 4 on grass, and 4 on clay, i'd personally bet my dollars on Nadal. Hell, I have bet Nadal during their last 5-6 meetings. Nadal's style of play is torture for Federer, and I agree he matches up great vs Federer. That said, I don't see how that makes him an overall better tennis player than Federer. When Marat Safin was playing in his prime and was #1 in the world the one player he couldn't seem to beat was Fabrice Santoro of all people. There are other numerous examples in tennis. As I pointed out earlier, Andy Murray holds a 7-6 record overall against Federer, but I think we can all agree he is no where near Federer's level.

Literally the only chink in Federer's armor is the fact he struggles against Nadal. Nadal is an amazing player and will end up with a winning record head to head, but in terms of overall accomplishments, Nadal is no where near Federer's level right now.

I have to agree with Zit here. I don't see how you could be the best ever if you constantly lose to another player in your generation. I know people usually have that one foe but it isn't like Nadal is some average player & he just happens to have Roger's #. He is a great player in his own right & owns Roger.

Small sample size. Fed would destroy him over 100 matches on non-clay.

On second thought, maybe he wouldn't. It might be close, but Fed still wins more, and Fed has done so much more against other opponents that there is no comparison between the two.

Come on. Your argument is no argument. I'm not saying that Federer hasn't done more so far in his career, I'm saying that the fact that he has been dominated by Nadal head-to-head
many times in MAJOR matches is a big factor against him being labeled the best player of all time. Your reply is to just dismiss their head-to-head record because of Federer's record against other people.